Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31079354›Full record

ReviewCurrent hematologic malignancy reports2019

Trends in Clinical Benefits and Costs of Novel Therapeutics in AML: at What Price Does Progress Come?

Jennifer E Vaughn, Veena Shankaran, Roland B Walter

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current hematologic malignancy reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Patient-Physician Communication in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndrome.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2021
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jennifer E VaughnDepartment of Medicine, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, 2 Riverside Dr., Roanoke, VA, 24016, USA. jvaughn@vtc.vt.edu.
Veena ShankaranClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Roland B WalterClinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewSince 2017, eight novel agents have been approved for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in the USA. Here, we review the clinical benefits and costs associated with these drugs. RECENT

findingsFor some of the newly-approved drugs, clinical benefit has been documented in randomized trials. Others received accelerated approval based on surrogate endpoints in early phase trials. All, however, carry significant costs and toxicities. Cost-effectiveness analyses are so far only available for midostaurin, CPX-351, and gemtuzumab ozogamicin. Recently approved drugs for AML have varying levels of evidence for clinical effectiveness and because of associated high costs may further increase the overall economic burden of AML care. This issue is complex and whether novel AML drugs will cost-effective will depend on multiple factors, including their ability to improve survival and quality of life while simultaneously reducing the costs of healthcare resource utilization.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisHumansLeukemia, Myeloid, AcuteQuality of LifeAcute myeloid leukemiaClinical benefitCost-benefitHealth economicsNovel therapeutics

Identifiers

PMID31079354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.